Tofu:Babwa Wawa: Adopted siblings show no more correlation in intelligence than strangers. But siblings and twins raised in the same family, too.

Actually, the largest investigation of intelligence in separated twins is the Bouchard study from 1979. It found a significant correlation (on the order of 76%) in scores between twins. There was a 0% correlation among strangers.

Babwa Wawa: There's a growing body of evidence that infectious disease rates has a significant bearing on intelligence.

Yeah, I also saw an interesting study that showed that if your grandparents had survived just one year of famine that had an effect on you. I know that it's very complicated and that we don't fully understand it.

But I stand by the assertion that some part of intelligence is genetically determined. You may have noticed that the smartest dog (or chimpanzee, pick any animal you like) is not as intelligent as the average human. They have different genes than we do and it limits their individual potential.

I guess my point is that if you accept the obvious fact that you are smarter than a dog, and you accept the obvious explanation that the difference between you and the dog is mostly genetic, then it's not too far a stretch to suspect the same thing applies within the species.

I think that most people reject this idea, not on its merits, but out of fear that it'll be used to justify racism. That mostly just shows that they don't know much about evolution. There's so much variation from one generation to another that it doesn't matter a whole lot to an individual if your parents were geniuses or idiots. It matters to the group but not to the individual.

Of course there's a genetic factor in intelligence. I wouldn't claim otherwise.

Genetics are an influence, and it might even be argued that strong influence, but regardless, it's a secondary one.

Also genetic factors can often be mistaken for environmental factors. Such as infectious disease (pops); parasitic infections in particular have measurable and massive impact on population intelligence.[image from economist.com too old to be available]

Rocket scientist usually means "engineer". We're a bit more jock than nerd, while we rarely have the time to actually play sports at the highest levels seeing us in intramurals or on the sidelines doing various things isn't unusual, and we have our own sporty events (like concrete canoe).

//Hint: generally requires a relevant technical degree for a reason. Checking figures and calculations, knowing how to evenly delegate the work involved in product design, etc. Plus, generally selected by appointing someone in the project group to the position, unless that company has a really, really nonstandard organization.

//Also involves talking to the company management for the other project engineers, and the company management sometimes includes people without technical expertise, like the advertising guys, the PHBs, etc. So many floor guys avoid the position like the plague.

Jim_Callahan://Also involves talking to the company management for the other project engineers, and the company management sometimes includes people without technical expertise, like the advertising guys, the PHBs, etc. So many floor guys avoid the position like the plague.

So what you do is you take the specifications from the customers and you bring them down to the software engineers?

I disagree about project managers, although the definition can mean different things in different companies. In most companies lately, the PM role is increasingly non-technical, and specializes in itself (project management certifications - that seems a fairly masturbatory field of study).

In my current workplace, PMs are treated as more or less secretaries. They get everybody's calendar together to work on a project/take a meeting. They take notes at the meeting, and provide everyone with action items.

In fact, my boss just assigned a project manager to me and this is exactly what he does - makes sure I get the resources I need to get projects I'm assigned completed. He does all the cat-herding, in other words. He has no technical background that I can determine, but I really don't know.

Now Program Manager is a different animal entirely, and much more like what you're describing.

Firefly4F4:In other words, he is unable to find an appropriate definition for "sexy men scientist", because he does not know how to measure sexiness in men.I imagine that if the female members of this forum were to make some suggestions, or compile such a list themselves, there would be no objection from the male contingent.Considering the number of women friends I have who go ga-ga over firefighters, it does go both ways.

I do know an ex firefighter(and still looks it) who also works as a designer when he can

sorry ladies, the man is already married. there've been suggestions to hire him at my day job, if we do, i'll install a discrete webcam if donations reach a certain point.

Sgian Dubh:Whiteston: Commonsenseathiest? Isn't that an oxymoron? Are you ABSOLUTELY sure?

More of a redundancy.

No it's not. "Atheist" means you don't believe in god. It makes no judgment as to WHY you don't believe in god. Maybe you disbelieve out of common sense, maybe you disbelieve because your dog told you to.

Please quit trying to assign attributes to atheism that are not contained therein. Thanks.

I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to discuss this with you. You quote my entire post, then say I'm wrong and give me a link to the wiki page on twin studies, which says that genetics has an "intermediate" level influence on IQ. For one thing, that's something of a weasel word. For another, it's not really clear which part of my post you think that link refutes, because if you think it refutes my thesis, it certainly does not.

What would have been really helpful is if you quoted just the part of my post that you wanted to direct that link to. For example, you might have done this:

Tofu:the Bouchard study from 1979. It found a significant correlation (on the order of 76%) in scores between twins.

I disagree and cite this page (here's where your link to wiki goes) which says that other studies go as low as 40%.

If that's actually what you meant to do just let me know and I'll respond to it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what we're talking about.

Babwa Wawa:Also genetic factors can often be mistaken for environmental factors. Such as infectious disease (pops);

I agree with this. In fact, I just recently saw a very interesting article that showed a correlation between parasite infection and soccer ability - lol.

But I don't think any of this disproves my thesis which is: very high intelligence is as much a genetic gift as very high sexual attractiveness.

Yes, excellent example. If Brian came to atheism out of common sense, then he falls into the category of common-sense atheist. If Peter came to atheism because Brian told him to, he's just following a leader and not applying any common sense after all.

Now, if Brian himself came to atheism because religious people piss him off, then he's not a common-sense atheist either, he's just a contrarian dick.

Yes, excellent example. If Brian came to atheism out of common sense, then he falls into the category of common-sense atheist. If Peter came to atheism because Brian told him to, he's just following a leader and not applying any common sense after all.

Now, if Brian himself came to atheism because religious people piss him off, then he's not a common-sense atheist either, he's just a contrarian dick.

Babwa Wawa:Tofu: Babwa Wawa: Adopted siblings show no more correlation in intelligence than strangers. But siblings and twins raised in the same family, too.

Actually, the largest investigation of intelligence in separated twins is the Bouchard study from 1979. It found a significant correlation (on the order of 76%) in scores between twins. There was a 0% correlation among strangers.

Babwa Wawa: There's a growing body of evidence that infectious disease rates has a significant bearing on intelligence.

Yeah, I also saw an interesting study that showed that if your grandparents had survived just one year of famine that had an effect on you. I know that it's very complicated and that we don't fully understand it.

But I stand by the assertion that some part of intelligence is genetically determined. You may have noticed that the smartest dog (or chimpanzee, pick any animal you like) is not as intelligent as the average human. They have different genes than we do and it limits their individual potential.

I guess my point is that if you accept the obvious fact that you are smarter than a dog, and you accept the obvious explanation that the difference between you and the dog is mostly genetic, then it's not too far a stretch to suspect the same thing applies within the species.

I think that most people reject this idea, not on its merits, but out of fear that it'll be used to justify racism. That mostly just shows that they don't know much about evolution. There's so much variation from one generation to another that it doesn't matter a whole lot to an individual if your parents were geniuses or idiots. It matters to the group but not to the individual.

Of course there's a genetic factor in intelligence. I wouldn't claim otherwise.

You're still wrong (pops).

Genetics are an influence, and it might even be argued that strong influence, but regardless, it's a secondary one.

Also genetic factors can often be mistaken for environmental factors. Such as infectious disease (pops); parasitic infections in particular have measurable and massive impact on population intelligence.